NIST Denies Access to WTC7 Data

Dave Rogers said:
Enough that it's not worth bothering any more. If cmatrix wants to make up fake laws of physics because he isn't getting the conclusions he wants from the real ones, that's his problem.
Click to expand...

Yes, but in the classic Truther fashion, he is trying to make it everyone else's problem!
 
triforcharity said:
No, it said it added no significant bearing on the collapse. It collapsed with or without the damage.




Just science, and engineering reports, and more facts.....



The ATF, FBI, and other state, national, and local LE agencies picked through EVERY piece of the rubble BY HAND. You don't think trained experts would be able to spot this type of damage?

You're foolish if you believe that.

I personally can look at a piece of metal, and tell you if it was cut with some type of device, or if it failed under stress. I've been teaching it for years.




Wrong. And wrong. But hey, arguments from personal ignorance will get you far....:rolleyes:



No, not "argument from incredulity". More like, "argument from facts and knowledge. The FBI, ATF, and other state, national, and local LE agencies went through the debris. You don't think they might find a device like those in the video suspicious? Horse****.




How does a perimeter column failure cause the interior of a building to collapse first? This would have been seen on any of the dozens of video of the 7WTC collapse. Why is this bright fireworks show missing from each and every one of them?
Click to expand...

Ah so NIST said the minor damage to WTC 7 added no significant bearing on the collapse. It collapsed with or without the damage. IOW NIST stated that the damage to WTC 7 was minor and was not responsible for its collapse. Which is just what I said and you believe I'm wrong. Oookaaay...

So when will you present the science, and engineering reports, and more facts that show fires caused WTC 7 to collapse? It's certainly not from NIST who are unable to explain the free fall period. None of the debunksters here have been able to either.

"The ATF, FBI, and other state, national, and local LE agencies picked through EVERY piece of the rubble BY HAND."

IOW you have absolutely no proof that not a single beam from the WTC towers showed this type of damage. All you have is faith-based belief. How do you know that the ATF, FBI, and other state, national, and local LE agencies examined every piece of the rubble and found no thermate-consistent damage? How do you know they are not lying? Because they told you? You believe everything you're told on faith? That explains a lot.

"Wrong. And wrong. But hey, arguments from personal ignorance will get you far...."

Well completely unsupported arguments from personal pomposity will not get you anywhere.

How have you determined that thermate reaction displays could not be hidden? Argument from incredulity? What would happen if you say put a Nomex mat around the device?
 
triforcharity said:
Well, then it is your own ignorance that has prevented you from learning.

Go talk to a physics professor at any local college. Maybe they can explain why you're so very wrong.
Click to expand...

I've talked to many many physics and engineering profs and not one has ever said I'm wrong. They either ignore me, insult me or agree with me but they never say why I'm wrong. Why don't you explain? Unless you're full of spit of course.
 
dc1971 said:
I meant defies... not defines!
Click to expand...

OK let's analyze this:

I said: "I'm not saying the collapse violated the laws of physics I'm saying the crackpot theory you believe in violates the laws of physics. "

You responded (corrected): "...and THAT, in turn, means you are saying the collapse defies the laws of physics..."

IOW you still say that you believe theory and reality are the same thing.

Only on JREF folks.
 
Well, I'll try once more, because the error is extremely simple and obvious.

cmatrix said:
That's where you're wrong. I do have evidence. NIST admits there was free fall. They also state that right before the free fall all support was removed by progressive collapse. This means GPE took out the supports when no GPE could have been available. Their crackpot theory that you believe in without question clearly violates the laws of physics.
Click to expand...


All the data shows that the fall began before the free fall period. Which means that before the free fall, during the non-free fall, converted GPE was available to do work such as bucking the columns. The fact that the fall did not become free fall immediately proves that it definitely was doing work on something during that time.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Dave Rogers said:
Enough that it's not worth bothering any more. If cmatrix wants to make up fake laws of physics because he isn't getting the conclusions he wants from the real ones, that's his problem.

Dave
Click to expand...

I don't call insults, pompous pronouncements, misrepresentations and 30 post rambling discussions due to your equivocation of the different definitions of the word "available" explanations.

If I was so wrong about these elementary high-school principles you could easily explain why. That you choose insults instead explains why you don't.
 
cmatrix said:
I've talked to many many physics and engineering profs and not one has ever said I'm wrong. They either ignore me, insult me or agree with me but they never say why I'm wrong. Why don't you explain? Unless you're full of spit of course.
Click to expand...

You approach them completely civilly, just like you did here of course?
 
Grizzly Bear said:
From your own source:
"As the object falls and accelerates due to the earth's gravity, PE is converted into KE. When the object strikes the ground, h=0 so that PE=0, the all of the energy has to be in the form of KE and the object is moving it at its maximum velocity. (In this case we are ignoring air resistance)."

Your earlier claim:


Yes you are fabricating your own laws by modifying existing, real ones. That is a no-no
Click to expand...

So you agree then that my source is saying that all available PE is immediately converted to KE the moment an object begins to fall?

I am not fabricating my own laws by modifying existing, real ones. You are by ludicrously trying to claim that GPE is the exact same thing as PE. What do you think the G stands for.
 
cmatrix said:
NIST who are unable to explain the free fall period. None of the debunksters here have been able to either.
Click to expand...

For the record:
Your inability to understand the answers given to you, repeatedly, does not make your post correct! It's sad, REALLY!
 
Myriad said:
Well, I'll try once more, because the error is extremely simple and obvious.




All the data shows that the fall began before the free fall period. Which means that before the free fall, during the non-free fall, converted GPE was available to do work such as bucking the columns. The fact that the fall did not become free fall immediately proves that it definitely was doing work on something during that time.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

No all the data shows free fall began immediately. NIST deviously chose a measurement point in the middle of the building instead of a corner. The roof bowed first explaining the non-free fall period you refer to. All four corners however, were in immediate free fall. This means GPE took out the supports when no GPE could have been available. Clearly the crackpot NIST theory violates the laws of physics.
 
Dog Town said:
For the record:
Your inability to understand the answers given to you, repeatedly, does not make your post correct! It's sad, REALLY!
Click to expand...

Yeah see I have this "problem" where I don't understand BS. No matter how many time someone spews BS I simply can't understand it.
 
cmatrix said:
Yeah see I have this "problem" where I don't understand BS. No matter how many time someone spews BS I simply can't understand it.
Click to expand...

Good, go prove it. Write a paper for publication. Maybe you aren't really interested, though, I could easily see why.

But that's just me.


ETA: Don't feel bad, none of us understand Bill Smith.
 
Last edited:
So you agree then that my source is saying that all available PE is immediately converted to KE the moment an object begins to fall
Click to expand...
Your source does not even agree with what you're saying... But it's only natural given your absurd fabrication and your inability to read the material that is relevant properly.

GPE = mgh

In otherwords it is dependent upon the relative position of two bodies, in this case height. GPE decreases as height decreases but is not zero until h=0. Only then is it completely been converted to Kinetic energy. I can't believe you can't fathom such a simple concept, especially after having somebody already explaining it to you multiple times. :\
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
Your source does not even agree with what you're saying... But it's only natural given your absurd fabrication and your inability to read the material that is relevant properly.

GPE = mgh

In otherwords it is dependent upon the relative position of two bodies, in this case height. GPE decreases as height decreases but is not zero until h=0. Only then is it completely been converted to Kinetic energy. I can't believe you can't fathom such a simple concept, especially after having somebody already explaining it to you multiple times. :\
Click to expand...

All available GPE does not mean all GPE. I can't believe you (and Dave) can't fathom such a simple concept, especially after having somebody already explain it to you multiple times.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom